Text of letter to Prime Minister

This week-end 100 Conservatives have expressed their support for an important letter to the Prime Minister. We are impatient at the way the Coalition is prevented from renegotiating or giving us a referendum this Parliament on our current membership. Conservative MPs are pressing the government to deal immediately with the worst pinch points of EU policy like immigration and energy prices by legislating in the UK. We are seeking to reassert Parliamentary sovereignty. Once we have used the formula of passing an amendment or repeal of an EU measure “notwithstanding the 1972 European Communities Act” we are in a strong position to gradually correct the damage EU policy is doing. This would be good law in the UK. We would not accept any legal challenge from the European Court, and rule that out in our UK law. Such action could of course trigger the political renegotiation the UK needs with the other member states, and allow us to explain from a position of strength that we wish to trade with them but not to be governed by them.
The argument that such a veto would make a single market impossible is untrue. The so called single market programme has been hijacked by federalists who have used it to produce a massive extension of EU government. Changing that would not prevent a profitable trade between EU nations. As the rest of the EU sells us much more than we sell them they would of course wish to keep sensible tariff and other arrangements to allow the trade to continue.

The letter says:

“Dear Prime Minister,

Each time you have stood up for British interests in Brussels, you have achieved a great deal. We would like you to consider adopting the ideas put forward by the European Scrutiny Committee, which would re-establish a national veto over current and future EU laws and enable Parliament to disapply EU legislation, where it is in our vital national interests to do so. This would transform the UK’s negotiating position in the EU.

This would reinforce the point you made last week in your FT article, in which you suggested that the right of “free movement” in the EU should be a “qualified right”.

It is clear that that is a direct challenge to the existing ‘acquis’, and indeed your article prompted EU Commissioner Reding immediately to claim such a step was “non-negotiable”. However, we believe you are on to something fundamental and which must be pursued.

You have similarly talked about “the return of Britain’s opt-out from social and employment legislation in those areas which have proved most damaging to our economy and public services”; “a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights”; and “limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level and ensuring that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.”

Your Bloomburg speech also made clear your challenge to the status quo in the EU when you justifiably asserted: “It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.”

In making these statements, you have the fullest support of the Conservative Party – and the majority of voters. Most importantly, you are also speaking in the national interest. However, clarity about how we will achieve these objectives is vital for our credibility. The European Scrutiny Report provides precisely that.

Last week European Scrutiny Committee agreed a unanimous report.
The report cites the existing Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union, which requires that the EU “shall respect the essential state functions” of its member states, and that this means respecting the democracy of the member states. Accordingly, the Committee’s report recommends that “there should be a mechanism whereby the House of Commons can decide that a particular legislative proposal should not apply to the UK”. Further, it recommends “parallel provision should be made to enable a decision of the House of commons to disapply parts of the existing acquis.”

This proposal would enable the Government, for example, to recover control over our borders, to lift EU burdens on business, to regain control over energy policy and to disapply the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (which is set impose enormous costs on British business and taxpayers) in popular and sensible ways.

We would urge you to back the European Scrutiny Committee proposal and make the idea of a national veto over current and future EU laws a reality.

Yours etc”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

92 Comments

Instead of writing letters to him why not just get a rid of him? He failed to win the last election despite unprecedented events like a run on a bank and a load of Labour MPs, including an ex minister, being on their way to jail. While PM he has come up with non manifesto vote losers like same sex marriage and left you with a load of electoral handicaps to overcome, such as the boundary changes and rapidly sinking party membership. During the Viet Nam war unpopular officers who put the lives of their troops unnecessarily at risk ended up being fragged.

They write a letter to Cameron when Osborne is about to give a speech that the UK should stay in a reformed EU!

When do the Troy MPs get it that Cameron and Osborne are not listening to them. Either the Tory supporters leave or Cameron does, it is quite simple. Tory support has halved under Osborne’s strategy and part time chancellor. The German foreign minister calls Eurosceptics brainless. The Tory MPs now argue for a veto on any law, we allegedly had this when we joined the EEC! Grayling arguing for changes, we allegedly had a veto in 2007 to stop/ prevent any further changes to the charter of freedom. Goodness me, what does it take for Tory MPs to wake up and smell the coffee?

Christopher Booker highlights, once again, the prattle Cameron spoke about this week in relation to climate change and the weather. Bearing in mind his prattle about energy bills recently. He says one thing and acts in stark contrast. No one believes or trusts Cameron.

Mr Redwood, the letter from 95-100 Tory MP’s is “Huff and Puff” politics to try and give the impression that:
1. Something can be done and fairly quickly.
2. Your leader and Mr Osborne are listening.
Or
3. Are you all simply playing charades for the tame mainstream media?
I don’t have the time, or your readers, the inclination to explain EU law and the time line necessary. Richard North does so succinctly a couple of days ago (11.01.14) here:

The EU’s Martin Schulz and Ms Reding (As well as our President Barosso) have made it abundantly clear that our EU Government won’t allow any changes to the free movement of people or the aquis and we have no hope from the other 27 nations who can send their sick, lame and unemployed here. British taxpayers, as always, will pick up the bill for their (EU and others) working benefits, child benefits, housing, health and education costs at a net loss to us for those who actually choose to work. Immigration has been and continues at invasion levels. 318000 from outside the EU last year and 185000 from inside. Forget net as the Government has no control over our highly qualified and entrepreneur’s who choose to leave having seen the Countries demise.
The game is up for the legacy parties as their goose is cooked and the sheeple can visibly see the results of the last 40 years of LibLabCon failure and capitulation to our EU masters on our Streets and Cities.
Most people know friends and relatives who can’t get a job (especially the young), whilst being served at all service industries by someone with a foreign accent. Waiting times for Doctors appointments get longer, sitting next to someone from elsewhere on equal status at our overcrowded international A&E or health service. Can’t get a place at a local school for their children.
The rush to build on the greenbelt to accommodate mass migration to alter our aging demographic. Note to politicians: Migrants also get old and its a giant Ponzi scheme.
The EU Turkeys will not vote for Christmas and want our foolhardy contributions and services at no charge to them.
If we keep voting for the same parties……….we will get the same result. Lets try a new patriotic party!

Reply We are seeking to use the power of Parliament to change our relationship with the EU and change policies.

Hague is now against the 95 who signed the letter with a little scare mongering added to the case- no surprise there if one looks at his voting record. A changed man if ever there was since the story about sharing a room with his adviser. I am afraid JR you need to take a different approach, they are not listening.

Indeed Hague just like the rest does not give a dam. All on the bridge are clearly EUphiles and just going to go down with ship shortly regardless. They pay far more attention to the fake green EU loving dopes in the Libdems than the sensible wing of the Tory party.

You were conned by Cameron’s EUsceptic, but totally empty & worthless lies.

Exactly!
In truth, don’t want rid of him. He is exactly the leader they want, someone who can deny with his lips what he does with his hands -> “at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world.”

With EU Parliamentary elections this May, and the General Election next year, the MP’s letter (probably instigated by Mr Cameron himself) is telling the faithful what they want to hear in an effort to offset some of the negative effect of the policies that he implemented without the support of the public.

Make no mistake, the Tory Party is in the clutches of the Fabians, just like the other two.

You’re quoting from Polly Toynbee’s grandfather, maybe following Lindsay Jenkins in her commendable 1997 book “Britain Held Hostage”?

“Perhaps his most outspoken and revealing talk was at Copenhagen in 1932 when he set out his views on the nation state … He broadcast his disloyalty to the nation state:

“If we are frank with ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and the independence of the fifty or sixty local sovereign independent States ….. The surest sign ….. that this fetish of local national sovereignty is our intended victim is the emphasis with which all our statesmen and our publicists protest with one accord …. at every step forward which we take …. that the sacred principle of local sovereignty is (not) really being encroached upon and its sphere of action reduced and its power for evil restricted. It is just because we are really attacking the principle of local sovereignty that we keep on protesting our loyalty to it so loudly”

How should it be done? Toynbee said:

“I will merely repeat that we are at present working discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of the world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be …. ostracised and discredited.

I believe the monster is doomed to perish by our sword. The fifty or sixty local states of the world will no doubt survive as administrative conveniences. But sooner or later sovereignty will depart from them. Sovereignty will cease in fact if not in name to be a local affair.”

He forecast that if the nation states “surrendered their sovereignty in good time, they can look forward to preserving their existence as non-sovereign institutions for an indefinite time to come.””

Note in particular that admission:

“And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands”,

Rather than “a national veto over current and future EU laws and enable Parliament to disapply EU legislation”, which barring the veto allows passive acceptance and automatic application, I would much prefer that any EU-inspired law should be subject to each item being debated and only brought into effect if it is passed by the UK parliament.

Interesting article – wonder why the government and the Biased BBC keep telling us that we have to keep freeloaders, when (as with so many other European laws) clearly we are obeying them and others are not. Or we are interpreting them in a way less favourable to our country and our people than others are.

“The so called single market programme has been hijacked by federalists who have used it to produce a massive extension of EU government. ” – Your letter.

Now read what Viviane Reding said in a recent speech on the future elections on May 22nd:

“We need a true political union. To me this means that we need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission as government and two chambers – the European Parliament and a “Senate” of Member States.”

All of us need to get the message across: European Parliament elections are more important than national elections.

This will be our best weapon against the Eurosceptics: to explain to our citizens that their vote really matters. That the big decisions on policies in the European Union are made by the parties of the centre. And that therefore it would be a waste of their vote to use it as a protest vote, by choosing Eurosceptics on the right or on the left.

Indeed Cameron may well say all sorts of things, in a (usually failed) attempt to garner votes, but he is simply no longer trusted one thou. In his actions he is clearly far more of a Ken Clarke, Peter Mandelson, Lord Patten, Nick Clegg type of person. With his pro EU, fake green, ever bigger state, 299+ tax raising and endless over regulation drivel.

He simply has the wrong Heart and Soul and genes. He cannot even tell us why he is so opposed to a Greater Switzerland merely that he is.

I see he has said “he will think about it but if national parliaments regularly overturned the EU the single market would not work”. In other words get lost I am an EUphile and I am going down with the ship in 2015! Cameron is interested mainly in Cameron – not the Tory party nor the interests of UK.

Perhaps a slimmer, younger Leon Britain is the closest fit to Cameron. The sad thing is there are no other options would be able to win the leadership (with the current rabble of lefty MPs) and would do any better, the party are stuck with him until the ship goes down in 2015.

Why, when Clegg (on the BBC this morning) says “3M jobs in the UK directly depend on the EU” do the BBC interviewers never question this absurd claim. The EU with its idiotic regulations, expensive energy, CAP, HS trains, the common fisheries policy, high taxation, lack of vision, big government, hugely anti-business attitude and idiotic EURO clearly destroys jobs by the millions all over the EU and the world.

No one sensible, looking at the facts, could think otherwise. Surely not even Clegg really thinks this does he?

He no other narrative to scare mongering. There is no substance to the debate for staying in the EU. As we saw recently the Swiss placed a limit on immigration, more than the UK can do. Cameron still cannot tell us why it would not be a good idea to be a greater Switzerland.

The UK cannot even determine what population it can have, its culture, laws or beliefs. The EU will state The UK will be a gender neutral, sex neutral, no national identity region of the EU so it is easier to become an EU superstate. And it is happening, a letter will not do.

Richard North at EUReferendum is scathing in his condemnation of both the letter and the “idiots” who wrote it. His main point is that this is pie-in-the-sky stuff and that nothing can come of it (barring of course withdrawal from the EU).

It is becoming incredibly boring and irritating having to spell out the obvious flaws in the above approach but let me do it again this time in capital letters so there is a chance you and your quarter witted colleagues might understand:

1. THE SINGLE MARKET WAS NOT “HI JACKED” BY THE FEDERALISTS, IT WAS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN PART OF THE PLAN TO ULTIMATELY CREATE A POLITICAL UNION. THE EU DID NOT START OUT AS A TRADING RELATIONSHIP THAT SOMEHOW GOT OUT OF HAND, IT WAS INTENDED TO BECOME A POLITICAL UNION FROM THE OUTSET. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STOP THIS PROCESS FROM WITHIN THE EU.

2.IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE THE TRADING RELATIONSHIP THAT YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES CLAIM TO DESIRE BUT ONLY BY WAY OF AN EXIT FROM THE EU VIA A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 50 OF THE LISBON TREATY.

Please repeat the above 100 times or as long as it takes to sink in.
Reply I have often explained the federal intent of the scheme and the needless regulations for the so called single market. I am also trying to deal with the persistent criticism from the federalists that we need the single market to sell to the EU. If we are to win we have to engage with the federalists and tackle their viewpoint. Don’t lecture me, lecture them

Well said ! The trouble is the tories in the government keep trotting out the same old lies because they actually believe them. If they read “The Great Deception” they might realise the truth as to how this evil organisation was set up in the beginning.

“I am also trying to deal with the persistent criticism from the federalists that we need the single market to sell to the EU.”

Correct ! At least initially. We can have access to the Single Market, all we have to do is make sure that it is pert of our agreement post Article 50. I am sure that those in the EU who sell a great deal more too us than we do to them, will be happy for this. It makes things easier.

What you and others have to do, is not argue with them, but try to address their concerns by working on a solution that will deliver. You have been told both by myself and others that an EFTA/EEA gives us all, both Federalists and Sovereigntists, what they want. Of course, if they are Federalists then they support Commissioner Reding’s position on a United States of Europe, which basically means you are wasting your time.

@ Steve

Thanks for saying what I was about to put. It indeed does get rather frustrating when we, the simple folk, can see the solution, but those who sit up on high simply cannot, or will not see the reality of the situation.

“Of course our past, present and future efforts will be directed to the goals you are rightly seeking. This government has and will make clear our determination to return key powers to national Parliaments as Sovereign entities”.

‘(1) An order made under Part 1 containing provision relating to Community treaties, Community instruments or Community obligations shall, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, be binding in any legal proceedings in the United Kingdom.

(2) In section 1 and this section –

“Community instruments” and “Community obligations” have the same meaning as in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68);

“Community treaties” has the same meaning as in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.’. — [Mr. Cash.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 318.”

Somehow Bill Cash had managed to get official Tory party support for this amendment, and therefore those who voted for it were mostly Tory MPs, with some Ulster unionists; among the senior Tories who went through the “aye” lobby were Dominic Grieve, who is now the Attorney-General, and Theresa May, who is now Home Secretary, and David Lidington, who is now Europe Minister.

The debate on that had taken place the previous day, starting at Column 750 here:

“Finally, I turn to the amendments on the European issue tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). Nowadays, so much of our regulation comes from Brussels that we cannot exempt that from scrutiny and from our deregulatory urge. New clause 17 makes a good attempt to draw the House’s attention to that and to make Ministers understand that they cannot have a deregulation policy worth anything unless they are prepared to tackle quite a number of the regulatory burdens coming from Brussels. That would preferably be through renegotiation of those individual items, but it would be good to have a legislative back-up to make it crystal clear that if this House wishes to deregulate something, that should be law made here in the United Kingdom.”

It’s good to see that some people are consistent on this matter, but unfortunately that cannot be said for Cameron and those other senior Tories, including the then Shadow Attorney-General Dominic Grieve, who agreed that the Tory party would officially support this assertion of parliamentary sovereignty in May 2006 but have since retreated from that on at least two occasions.

The first occasion being on March 5th 2008 over an amendment to affirm and protect the sovereignty of Parliament against possible attack through Declaration 17 attached to the Lisbon Treaty, Division No 120 at Column 1877 here:

This does seem to be something of substance. It raises some fundamental questions.

(1) Irrespective of the merits of the objectives contained in the letter, is there any prospect of them being achieved through the current parliament given the likely way its Members will vote?

(2) Are the objectives contained within the letter consistent with the Prime Minister’s stated policy that the UK should remain within the EU?

(3) If the objectives contained within the letter are achieved while at the same time the UK remains as a member of the EU, would such an EU be a credible and coherent organisation of which the UK would like to be a member?

(4) Why would the approach advocated within the letter be better for the UK than simply leaving the EU and negotiating such arrangements as we want from outside?

1) Scotland either votes for complete independence or devolution is enormously extended to give essentially the same result.

2) The EU proposes the rUK must re-apply for EU membership as they are no longer the entity which negotiated and signed the existing treaties. The HM government says this is not being proposed by the EU.

3) The EU proposal arrives for negotiation. HM government says there is nothing to negotiate.

4) The EU proposal is negotiated. HM government says it is winning the argument.

5) The EU decides that rUK can be fast tracked back into the EU if all existing treaties, including a new one proposed by Germany, are signed immediately without opt-outs. The HM government says the decision does not say what it says.

6) The BBC, the CBI, the Civil Service, all EU supported organisations and EU pension holders, and most Parliamentarians say that exit from the EU will rapidly lead to millions of job losses and financial ruin for the rUK.

The letter is forceful , well explained and , particularly , timely . The work done by Bill Cash and his Scrutiny Committee has been overlooked for too long ; it has reflected the view of the electorate and , for reasons only known in 10 Downing St. , been pushed to one side . I’m not of the opinion it is just the constraint influence in the Cabinet of the LibDems ., it has to be because David Cameron is too inclined towards the need for a united Conservative Party belief ; in fact , it has led to its biggest ever split . The Opinion Polls today make it clear that the centre of power must be returned from Brussels . Nigel Farage is now in clear blue water and has been handed a magnificent start to the forthcoming EU election . A deal with UKIP makes sense and should be engineered as quickly as possible .

Bert–I am disappointed that John doesn’t seem to think that the Country Before Party plan is worth his even commenting on, not so far at any rate. He did say he would read it so I am sure he has. It is at least possible that Country Before Party could actually happen whereas, although the Letter John shows us today has a lot of good stuff in it, it of course has not even the remotest chance of happening, certainly not while Cameron is there.

Blimey–As I said (and, forgive me, the only way I know for certain as I write–remember I advised you might want to hold your nose) is James Delingpole’s blog a couple or three days ago in which he gives a link to Toby Young’s article. For what worth to you, I am gobsmacked all round. I merely read the article, thought gr8 if it or something similar could be done, and that it might get further useful discussion going; however now it seems that nobody (to my knowledge) has even heard of it, but how can that be? Delingpole may not, because of his rooting for UKIP, be your cup of tea but he definitely does exist, right?, as does Toby Young. BTW, I am thoroughly depressed having just read what our esteemed Chancellor is apparently going to say tomorrow (per Torygraph today). He and the PM badly need lessons in the basics of how to negotiate. It makes me weep.

It is a shame the list of signatories has not been published. It is imperative that the next Conservative party leader is chosen in 2015 from among those who signed this. No more faux euro sceptics like Maeron please and that includes Boris Johnston, Theresa “European investigation order” May any many others that want to keep us in the EU and delay and minimise change.

I agree. My first reaction in reading this excellent letter was the same. Who are the signatories? Can we be enlightened please?
However being a pessimist on this issue I am convinced, like many others, that given the opportunity and however many ‘gains’ he might achieve before 2017 David Cameron will never, ever campaign for OUT. We will be opposed by every vested interest imaginable and be frightened into voting for the status quo.

This was brought to my attention by R North on his eureferendumblog, who in turn refers to C Booker’s article in the Telegraph.http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84618
Booker: floods, treaties and other matters
“…As we (RN and CB) have both noted, there has been scant secrecy about what the EU’s ruling elite is up to. Since October we have even been able to read a 300-page draft of their new treaty, published by the German think tank Bertelsmann-Stiftung, and backed by José Manuel Barroso, the Commission president, and Herman Van Rompuy, the European Council president.
Barroso has said that, before stepping down later this year, he plans to make a major statement on this treaty, hoping to put it at the centre of May’s euro-election campaign. Not only will this treaty become major news, but it will also show up all of Mr Cameron’s talk about a treaty of his own as idle prattle.
A year or two after his 2017 deadline we will, by law, have to hold a referendum, wholly different from anything he is talking about, to decide whether we can accept a treaty that, according to the draft, will allow us to remain in the EU but as a second-class “associate member”.

“So why are we not being told about this?”, Booker asks.”

has It rather puts the efforts of our Eurosceptic MPs into perspective

The time for polite letters congratulating an india-rubber Prime Minister for his non-existent achievements in resisting E.U. mission-creep is past. 100 Conservative M.P.s out of the total who do not agree, never mind their LibDem partners and the Labour Members is ineffective, as your previous words on this blog on arithmetic have made clear.

Your leader has expressed his view that he is in favour of the U.K. remaining a member of the European Union. That membership is unlawful.

Writing letters to a politician in favour of an unlawful situation is not likely to achieve the return to the rule of law which is essential.

If the 100 M.P.s who have signed this letter believe that the sovereignty of the British people should be reasserted, something more than letter-writing is required of them.

There has been no change in the immigration figures despite all the posturing by DC that he would get them down.

When will he or any of you understand that you do not have the authority to CHANGE ANYTHING. We are governed by the EU under all their treaties and you are all just “Managers”. Get used to it because you have to ask permission before you do anything and usually it is refused !!

Parliament is still the supreme legal authority for the United Kingdom and it can completely repeal its previous Acts approving the EU treaties, whereupon EU law would cease to have any legal force in this country. Very few question that it still has the authority to do that, at present, and in fact most europhiles are content to emphasise that if we don’t like being in the EU then we are perfectly free to leave any time we can get a majority of MPs to vote for that.

Somewhat more contentious is whether Parliament has the authority to partially repeal the Acts approving the EU treaties, which is the essence of what is being proposed here – that Parliament should repeal the Acts to the extent that certain specified EU laws would no longer be granted any legal force in this country, while other EU laws would continue to have legal force here.

I would go with the view of Bill Cash MP that as Parliament is still the supreme legal authority it certainly has the authority to do that, and any problems which may arise subsequently would not be with our national law but would be on the international plane, that is to say some of our neighbours might object.

One thing we can do immediately is harmonise our benefits structure better so that we are no more generous than other EU states and things like Child Benefits paid for children are paid at the going rate in the country where the children live. If it alright for local workers it must be alright for those whose parent(s) work in the UK.

The Tories want to try putting the interests of Britain first for the people living in Britain and stop blaming Europe for many of the as what Osborne laughably calls hard choices. Hard choices that as I have pointed out a numberer of times do not fall on him and his supporters, but on mainly non Tory voters or non voters such as the young and unemployed.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/12/george-osborne-cuts-young-poor
Ram this. Lefty rants will not wash whatsoever. Lefty socialist France is like here socialism for the rich with inheritance taxes being a big part of this being allowed . As Tax breaks for the rich and sweetheart deals for big business are. Absolute communism run by a communist party. The BBC? etc

This sycophantic letter will achieve nothing. Despite bouts of Eurosceptic rhetoric, the PM has shown his true colours – as has George Osborne; namely, that they wish the UK to remain in a member of a reformed EU. This not only discounts the wishes of the British people, it also ignores the reality frequently expressed by Signor Barroso and others, that piecemeal repatriation of powers is not possible under existing treaties. Nor, indeed, does the Commission wish it.

Mr Cameron has had 3 years to put a clean referendum before the British people but has chosen not to do so. In this, as in much else, he lacks the courage to act for fear of the consequences.

The Tory party is finished electorally unless it finds a leader with conviction and the guts to act on it.

I await developments with interest, and wish the signatories and the Committee of course in particular, and the rest of us who want major change, Good Luck. Such hard work, intelligence and dedication deserves just reward. I would like to think that the PM is of the same mind as the reformers, and needs developments of this nature to help him along, not being able to come out and say it himself.

Sorry, John but although I have great respect for you and most of the time I agree with your ideas, this letter is just political troublemaking. It will give ammunition to Clegg and Miliband and make life even more difficult for the PM.

Cameron cannot get a Veto bill through Parliament because, as you have frequently advised UKIP posters here, he hasn’t got the numbers.

Secondly, whether we like it or not, the last Government gave away our fundamental right of Veto in most areas and gained nothing in return.

No matter how much we dislike them, we cannot and must not unilaterally break treaties legally entered into by previous British Governments.

If we do, amongst other undesirable consequences, we will give Spain a precedent under which they may well then feel able to unilaterally break the Treaty of Utrecht and be far more aggressive in their efforts to recover Gibraltar.

We are legally signed up to QMV and the only way out is to renegotiate or, if that fails ( as it certainly will ), leave.

The EU is perfectly willing to break its own treaties when it suits – for example, with members of the Commission staying in post beyond their prescribed five year terms, and with the EU Parliament being unlawfully constituted for two whole years, during which period all its acts could and should have been deemed null and void – so I would have few moral qualms about our sovereign Parliament deciding that it was necessary to break the EU treaties on certain occasions.

Could you also ask him to confirm that in the UK, Channel Islands and IOM, we will not allow theft of 10% of savings and accounts over £100k, as suggested by the IMF. If not anyone with an amount over this, often needed for property transactions or investments for pension top up, would be wise to transfer it elsewhere or buy assets. This move could have a few unintended consequences if anyone was unscrupulous enough to implement it. There has been no reaction from HMG so far to this proposed raid.

I vaguely seem to remember from my school days in history lessons, that a certain PM went off to see some ‘johnny foreigner’ and came back home with a piece of paper, claiming peace and no war, or something. I mean, what possibly could go wrong with that approach to European politics ?

Those useful fools who have indulged themselves in this piece of fantasy politics , and that rather sadly includes our kind host, might do well to read that which we have signed. ie The various Treaties from Rome too Lisbon. It was their job after all. It is what we pay you people for, isn’t it ?

Had you all bothered to read them, any of them, then you would not have people like Dr. Richard North of EUReferendum, Denis Cooper, myself and many others telling you what you can and cannot do. Just think how embarrassing it is to have little people like myself correct you over points of European and UK Law. Seriously !!!!

You CANNOT control EU immigration – PERIOD !!!!!! END OF. NO MORE DISCUSSION.

You CANNOT deny other ‘EU Citizens’ the right to access our welfare and benefits system – PERIOD !!!!!! END OF. NO MORE DISCUSSION.

You CANNOT renegotiate the return of ANY powers ceded too the EU – PERIOD !!!!!! END OF. NO MORE DISCUSSION.

There will be no referendum in 2017 – Not because Parliament will not necessarily pass the legislation but, you will not be allowed to because they (EU) will be in full flow renegotiating a new Treaty. I Know this is a bit presumptuous of me but, I suggest they have the signing ceremony Munich, Germany, and call it the Munich treaty. For some reason it seems to have something to do with the PM I have mentioned above – can’t think why though !

Mr. Redwood MP sir, with the utmost respect, could please re-frame from embarrassing yourself with this kind of sham. Your Leader and your Party are thoroughly detested and have shown complete contempt for the people of this country, our history, laws and traditions. You (Conservative Party) have fallen in love with ‘another’ (EU) and despite your denials, we see through all this and will give you back that which you so distastefully have given out. Your Leader and your Party is totally untrustworthy.

Mercifully more and more people are beginning to wake up to the sham and those responsible for it. And it is with some sadness that I say that the only solution is for the complete destruction of your Party at the ballot box. Something that can easily happen as you have written yourself about, regarding the German elections.

Reply Continuing clashes between Eurosceptics will give the victory to the federalists. The Jenkin/Cash proposals if implemented would force a change of relationship of the kind we want. These proposals were Conservative policy at one point in Opposition.

“If national parliaments all around the European Union were regularly and unilaterally just able to chose which bits of EU law they would apply and which bits they wouldn’t well then the European single market wouldn’t work.”

Well of course it would still work, just to some degree even less perfectly than it does now, which would have a small economic cost – and it would be small, because it was originally projected that the single market might provide a one-off boost to the collective GDP of the EU member states of only 5%, equivalent to just two years natural economic growth for the UK at the long term trend rate of growth, and as far as I know that has not been achieved.

But what this shows is that Hague believes in the primacy of EU law, and not in the supremacy of our national Parliament; and however much he may deny it that defines him as a eurofederalist.

The significance of this has been covered in articles in Telegraph today by CB and on R North’s blog. However, suffice to say that it unsurprisingly confirms that the intention is ever closer integration, as swiftly as possible, with no repatriation of powers and cherry picking. Our option instead will be to accept EU terms of Associate Membership, or leave. The content rather puts into perspective our own MPs’ efforts with regard to a referendum in 2017, and renegotiation/repatriation of powers.

I haven’t had a chance to read through that yet, but I note for starters that another word for “Fundamental Law” is “Constitution” – for example the German constitution is the Grundgesetz, which is usually translated as “Basic Law” but can equally well be translated as “Fundamental Law”:

To be generous to the signatories, the letter is good to the extent that it is a push in the right direction, but it does rather smack of a little local skirmish that will have the effect, whether intended or not, of diverting attention from the heart of the matter.

And I find myself left bemused as to whether the signatories believe that what they are advocating is “the” solution, or at least a step on the road to the solution; though what that solution might actually be I can not fathom.

Or perhaps the real objective is more to do with an attempt to change Conservative Party Policy from within without being seen to be at odds with the leadership.

It must be a hard furrow to plough for any party member to be at one and the same time loyal to the Party and against Party policy.

Reply We see this this as another move to a solution, just as our move to persuade them to a referendum was part of this process, cutting the EU budget was part of the process, and getting agreement to a renegotiation was part of the process.

Thank you for the reply. So a step on the road to a solution it is then.

I think fellow travellers will be in short supply all the time there is no clarity as to where these steps are intended to lead. By the way, a referendum is not an end point but a fork in the road, and who knows who will be calling for which route to take.

Thinks: perhaps I am all at sea with my “roads” and “furrows”; or rather, being at sea would be more appropriate. Thus, making waves draws attention, and the bigger the waves the greater attention – until the rescue crew take charge of the ship of state and sail to waters safe from the turbulent EU.

I am sorry this comment has become rather OTT. But it is late, and through tired eyes I can just see the tug boat that is leading the way; I can’t make out the name, but it seems to begin with a “U”.

Clegg implied this am that these sort of tactics are pre- election stirrings by the less than caring conservatives. He said that the only hope in the future was to temper the conservative insensitivity and put an anchor on labour’s bad financial management.

Your letter is unlikely to change anything, unless it has a purpose beyond my comprehension.
After five decades always voting Conservative, I and my wife are eagerly looking forward to the elections this year and next. It is our duty, to our children and grandchildren, to support Nigel.

I cannot condemn the concept in fact I find the idea laudable but challenge the practicalities of such an action. There is no chance sufficient MPs would support it, I suspect David Cameron will not and even if it did become UK law the commissars of Brussels would have the UK before the EU court screaming foul. The court will find the UK guilty of breaching EU law and force the UK to retract the bill or face heavy fines and in the face of UK intransigence will keep on fining the UK until it submits. It would cause an EU constitutional crisis though and would definately put the cat amongst the pigeons but then maybe that is the aim.

One of the best summaries I have read, in addition to the two articles/journalists I have mentioned in my earlier comment, with regard to this whole issue of the future direction of the EU, our chances of a referendum, in the context of recent actions/pronouncements by Eurosceptic MPs. Article entitled “EU’s New Treaty – A Great Leap Forward” on The Boiling Frog blog.

I am somewhat perplexed by all the people who, when John writes about Europe, attack him for anything governments have ever done with Europe. People should express their anger towards the Labour and Tory and Lib den MPs who always vote for pro EU policies not one of the people against the EU!

One or two people cannot by themselves make changes, we need the electorate to put on pressure and vote in anti EU candidates – like a lot of the 2010 conservative intake perhaps and as we see from UKIP’s growth and the pressure that puts on the big parties.

There is still a lack of trust about referendums but lets not be too downbeat, at least we finally one party promising one and a EU commission determined to encourage it by saying ever stupider things!

I get cross a do take our kind host to task on this matter because, unlike an awful lot of people, too many in fact, I have a basic grasp of the EU and what it is. I therefore, and not entirely unreasonable, expect those who we elect, pay, and trust to act for, and on our behalf, to have at least a similar understanding. I do not posses the level on knowledge shown by the likes of Dr. North or Denis Cooper, but I have good grasp and I am willing to learn more. I listen to what is being told and then seek to conform it, adding to my own knowledge. I do not ask our elected representatives to know everything on any given subject, even on the EU but, I do expect them to at least accept that those who may know more are worth listening to. When they keep coming out with the same tired excuses and stunts like today, I feel that this is a complete waste of effort.

The Europhiles, and indeed the Europlastics have most of what they want. We are inside the EU and their intention is for it to remain so until we can be successfully assimilated into the Eurozone. We may not join now in one great leap but, we will join piece by piece. Talking to Europhiles is a waste of time and effort. The only way forward is to find alternative options to the EU and present them to the nation. Dispelling their fears and showing how much better the UK would be outside the malign grip of the EU.

This whole project has been build on a fabric of lies and deceit, and I want no part of it. Those who wish to prolong this agony under the guise of discussion and renegotiation may fool many, but it isn’t fooling me, and I will not be insulted !

I am truly grateful to our kind host and the fact that he take time to write, read, and comment on his ‘Diary’, we are much more fortunate than we care to admit. But I will not let anyone take me for a fool !

what does open borders mean? you are against ICT visas as used currently? you dont want new member states citizens to gain work rights here automatically? you are happy with current situation but want the UK parliament to make the same mistakes as Europe? what do the 100 mean, and what will the die in a ditch for? then get it front page news…

John, I have been following Christopher Bookers coverage in todays Telegraph about the new treaty being prepared by the EU commissars. It would appear that no Euro members will be given associate status which actually means that we are removed from any discussions formulating policy but will have to implements it.
Our contribution will remain as it is and when we vote to ratify the treaty there will be no question about leaving the EU. It appears we will be asked to a) Join the Euro and have a 1 in 28 vote or stay as we are with no vote.
Is this why Cameron is keen to stress 2017 as he can say he has negotiated associate membership when in fact this is a worse than ever deal.
He will probably recommend we join the Euro sos we have a voice.
Do you think we are entirely stupid???

Reply No, I don’t. Mr Cameron will not recommend joining the Euro. If the new status he achieves is no good we will vote for Out.

I think you are right, Ian, that Associate membership would be worse than at present. I also fear greatly that, with spin, Associate membership will be presented as an acceptable arrangement, and that many people will be fooled by this. I think that when the new treaty comes about we need to be firmly out of the EU (and ideally before that time).

I wonder to which waste paper basket your letter has been consigned? Your answer is here in the Telegraph from 3 senior Conservative cabinet ministers, firstly, Hague and Grayling:
“Tory rebels demanding the power to veto every aspect of EU law are not being “realistic”, two senior cabinet ministers have said. ”
And then quoting Osborne:
“Chancellor to back Britain staying in a ‘reformed EU’”.
Now tell us all again about your Eurosceptic party! It never has been, it is not now and is led by supporters of Euro federalism.
Face it, your party will not get us out of the EU nor does it want to do. Anyone who wants self-governance has to vote UKIP.

It’s interesting that MPs who are pro EU are generally those who have never done anything in life except politics, have no experience of anything and are incompetent (look no further than the three party leaders). One has to admire the Conservative MPs who genuinely believe they can influence David Cameron and shape the agenda on the EU. Cameron is a fake eurosceptic and only complains about it every now and then to try and keep his eurosceptic wing quiet and win back a few naive voters from UKIP – the only party worth bothering to make the effort and vote for. Still, 16 months to go and Cameron will be history. Looking forward to it.

A lot of negative comments on this piece. It may not gain traction but I hope it sends a strong message – just a shame its only 100 MPs. If only there were 200 more Redwoods in the HOC this issue could surely be put to bed.

Is this letter really a warning shot to Cameron and a declaration of intent to be followed after the anticipated disaster of Tory fortunes at the Euro elections?
Could Cameron be forced out as PM after the Euros? Would these 100 Conservative MPs do a deal with UKIP in the aftermath of a wipe-out? Are you clearly positioning yourselves now and using this letter as an insurance policy for the post-election period?

We would not accept any legal challenge from the European Court, and rule that out in our UK law. Such action could of course trigger the political renegotiation the UK needs with the other member states, and allow us to explain from a position of strength that we wish to trade with them but not to be governed by them.

I doubt that the other EU countries are going to allow the UK to ignore EU law simply because it will benefit the UK. Especially when no other country can ignore EU law, yet have complete access to the common market.

Given that other countries that import more from the EU than the UK haven’t been able to obtain this relationship it’s unlikely that the UK will be given this relationship.

The so called single market programme has been hijacked by federalists who have used it to produce a massive extension of EU government.

You can only have a single market if all countries have to follow the same rules regarding the production of goods and services. It won’t work if one country is allowed to force people to work for free, while all the other countries have to pay their employees.

As the rest of the EU sells us much more than we sell them they would of course wish to keep sensible tariff and other arrangements to allow the trade to continue.

They also sell a lot to the USA and China but they’ve put tariffs and quotas on both of these countries.

This proposal would enable the Government, for example, to recover control over our borders, to lift EU burdens on business, to regain control over energy policy and to disapply the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (which is set impose enormous costs on British business and taxpayers) in popular and sensible ways.

What about all the Brits who are currently living in the EU? Will they be forced to return to the UK when other EU countries regain control of their borders?

Also I doubt the Conservatives will be popular if they start trying to remove employee rights and human rights. People do want to live in a country where they’re not abused by their employers or the state.

In other news Sir Merrick Cockell, the leader of councils in England and Wales, warns that volunteers will be needed to run some basic council services at a time when council budgets are being cut and Osborne is planning to force the unemployed to work for their benefits. If seems that the Conservatives have been destroying council services, rather than creating jobs, so that they can force the unemployed to work in them for free. No wonder the economy has had so many problems when the Conservatives have been constantly wrecking it for ideological reasons.

Uni
You say “council budgets are being cut” but the amount of money being spent is going up.
Quote from Government:- “Budgeted total revenue expenditure by local authorities in England totals £102.2 billion in 2013-14, compared with £98.4 billion in 2012-13, an increase of 3.8%.”
Not a huge rise but many businesses in the private sector would be very happy to have 3.8% extra available to spend.
I know businesses that are having to cope with budgets reduced by 10% and more and still manage to keep their customers happy.
I hope you would agree with me that there is scope for savings to be made at the top of these Councils with many executives and managers on big six figure salaries rather than making deliberate gestures of cutting front line services as a first reaction.

John – every right is qualified. Even the right to life has self defence. Its down to having the authority to qualify it. Back to the same issue then. I think the key issue here is what what the right to qualify leads. There is clearly some internal structure here – that needs fleshing out.

For example the right to settle, or right to send child care abroad – thats about being reciprocal. To I would say you had the right to veto a rule if it was reciprocal. There are lots of other exaples that can lead to principles that can be found.

I think it boils down to the this – and I think this needs to be sold to the British people. The idealist philopsophy on the continent is to have a platonic ideal. The British are more empirical (even US pragmatic in nature) In the in otherwords the EU could set an ideal (ala the French Platonic ideal) and we need to be able to choose whether to adopt it.

It is the difference between cultures that have developed over the past 500 years that is the root cause of the differences. These differences are deeply rooted.

About John Redwood

John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.